HomeMy WebLinkAboutRDA Packet 2000/09/12
~{f?
-f!-
- - -..;;::
CIlY OF
CHUIA VISTA
TUDDAY, SEPrEMRER 12, 2000 COUNCIL CHAMRED
6:00 P.M. PUR.,C SIRVlCD BUILDING
(I_EDIATELY FOLLOWING rHE CITY COUNCIL MEnING)
MEETING OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
Agency Members Davis, Moat, Padilla, Salas, and Chair Horton
CONSENT ITEMS (Items 1 through 3)
The staff recommendations regarding the fallowing item Is) listed under the Consent Calendar will be
enacted by the Agency by one motion without discussion unless an Agency member, a member of the
public or City staff requests that the item be pulled for discussion. If you wish to speak on one of these
items, please fill out a "Request to Speak Form" available in the lobby and submit it to the Secretary of
the Redevelopment Agency or the City Clerk prior to the meeting. /tems pulled from the Consent
Calendar will be discussed after Action Items. Items pulled by the public will be the first items of
business.
1. AGENCY APPROVING FINAL CONTRACT AMENDMENT FOR LEGAL SERVICES IN THE
RESOLUTION COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR NEGOTIATIONS ON THE
GATEWAY CHULA VISTA PROJECT-The Redevelopment Agency completed
negotiations for the development of approximately 4.5 acres of property located at the
northwest corner of Third Avenue and H Street in June of this year. This action
formally amends the contract with Stradling Vacca Carlson ond Routh to provide for
final payment for legal services rendered during the completion of the Disposition and
Development Agreement (DDA) approved by the Agency Boord on June 6, 2000. The
adopted Agency budget has sufficient funds for payment of the services; however, on
amendment to the existing contract to cover the additional cost is necessary.
[Community Development Director]
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Agency adopt the resolution.
2. AGENCY ADOPTING NEGATIVE DECLARATION 15-00-22, APPROVING A COASTAL
RESOLUTION DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT WITH
COMMUNITY HEALTH GROUP FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 46-SPACE
PARKING LOT WITHIN THE BAYFRONT REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA-
Community Health Group is proposing a 46-space parking lot to be located at the
southeast corner of Boy Boulevard and J Street, across the street from their existing
facility. The proposed land use as a parking lot is subiect to Design Review
Committee recommendation and Agency approval. The proposed land use is
consistent with the City's Municipal Code and General Plan, the Bayfront Specific Plan
and Local Coastal Plan (LCP), and the Bayfront Redevelopment Plan and
- ..
AGENDA -2- SEPTEMBER 12,2000
Implementation Plan. Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), it has been determined that there are no significant impacts. The
Bayfront Redevelopment Plan requires that Community Health Group enter into on
Owner Participation Agreement (OPA), which includes the design plans and a list of
conditions. [Community Development Director)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Agency adopt the resolution.
3. AGENCY APPROVING A $10,000 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BUDGET AMENDMENT
RESOLUTION FOR DOWNTOWN BUSINESS ASSOCIATION PROMOTIONS AND
ADVERTISING FROM UNAPPROPRIATED TAX INCREMENT REVENUE FROM
THE BAYFRONT/TOWN CENTRE I PROJECT-On 3/21/2000, the City Council
approved on increase of $5,000 for promotional activities and $5,000 for advertising
for the Downtown Business Association's annual budget allocation for inclusion in the
2000-01 Redevelopment Agency Budget for the Town Centre I/Bayfront Proiect Area.
The change was inadvertently omitted from the final approved budget as adopted.
This action will rectify this oversight and amend the budget accordingly. [Community
Development Director]
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Agency adopt the resolution.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This is an opportunity for the generol public to address the Redevelopment Agency on any subject
matter within the Agency's jurisdiction that is not an item on this agenda. (State law, however, generally
prohibits the Redevelopment Agency from taking action on any issues not included on the posted
agenda.) If you wish to address the Agency on such a subject, please complete the "Request to Speak
Under Oral Communications Form" available in the lobby and submit it to the Secretary to the
Redevelopment Agency or City Clerk prior to the meeting. Those who wish to speak, please give your
name and address for record purposes and follow up action.
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
The following items have been advertised and/or posted as public hearings as required by law. If you
wish to speak to any item, please fill out the "Request to Speak Form" available in the lobby and submit
it to the Redevelopment Agency or the City Clerk prior to the meeting.
4. PUBLIC TO CONSIDER A REQUEST TO AMEND THE OTAY VALLEY ROAD
HEARING REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AND DESIGN
MANUAL ADDENDUM TO LIST A CONCRETE BATCH PLANT AS A USE
ALLOWED BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT-Superior Ready Mix Concrete requested on
application for a special use permit for a concrete botch plant on property located at
1855 Maxwell Rood within the Otay Volley Rood Redevelopment Project Area. The
Otay Volley Rood Redevelopment Proiect Area Implementation Plan and Design
Manual Addendum, which govern the land use in the Otay Volley Rood Proiect Area,
does not allow concrete botch plants conditionally or by right. [Community
Development Director] (CONTINUED FROM THE MEETING OF 8/1/20001
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Agency adopt the resolution.
..
AGENDA -3- SEPTEMBER 12,2000
AGENCY DENYING THE REQUEST FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE OTAY VALLEY
RESOLUTION ROAD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AND
DESIGN MANUAL ADDENDUM TO LIST A CONCRETE BATCH PLANT AS A
USE ALLOWED BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT
5. PUBLIC TO CONSIDER GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A PEAK LOAD
HEARING POWER PLAN ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3497 MAIN STREET WITHIN
THE SOUTHWEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA-The proposed Peak Load
Power Plant is on electrical power generation plant designed to meet the local and
regional electrical requirements as well as providing for regional transmission system
and local distribution grid support. The main function of a Peak Load plant is to
produce additional electrical power during periods of high demond, and function as
support for the regular power generation and distribution system. The applicant is
requesting approval of a Special use Permit and design plans for the construction of a
plant which involves the installation of electrical general equipment of a 3.5 acre
property located south of Main Street and Albany Avenue close to the Otay River
Volley. [Community Development Director]
(CONTINUED FROM THE MEETING OF 8/22/20001
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Public Hearing be continued to September
26, 2000.
ACTION ITEMS
The items listed in this section of the agenda are expected to elicit substantial discussions and
deliberations by the Agency, staff, or members of the general public. The items will be considered
individually by the Agency and staff recommendations may in certain cases be presented in the
alternative. Those who wish to speak, please fill out a Request to Speak form available in the lobby and
submit it to the Secretary to the Redevelopment Agency or City Clerk prior to the meeting.
6. REPORT STATUS ON THE GATEWAY MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT-Stoff will
present on oral report to update the Agency on the Gateway Chula Vista Project. The
projects design process has been completed and the overoll development program
has been submitted for review. The presentation will update the Agency regarding the
submitted design plans. This update is not a formal review of the project's Specific
Plan or associated General Plan amendment, which will be presented following the
completion of the environmental review process. [Community Development Director)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept the report.
OTHER BUSINESS
7. DIRECTOR'S REPORT(S)
8. CHAIR'S REPORT(S)
9. AGENCY COMMENTS
- ..
AGENDA .4. SEPTEMBER 12, 2000
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting will adjourn to a closed session and thence to on Adjourned Meeting of the Redevelopment
Agency on September 26, 2000 at 6:00 p.m., immediately following the City Council meeting, in the City
Council Chambers.
CLOSED SESSION
Unless Agency Counsel, the Executive Director, or the Redevelopment Agency states otherwise
at this time, the Agency will discuss and deliberate on the following item(s) of business which
are permitted by low to be the subject of a closed session discussion, and which the Agency is
advised should be discussed in closed session to best protect the interests of the City. The
Agency is required by law to return to open session, issue any reports of final action token in
closed session, and the votes token. However, due to the typical length of time token up by
closed sessions, the videotaping will be terminated at this point in order to save costs so that
the Agency's return from closed session, reports of final action token, and adjournment will
not be videotaped. Nevertheless, the report of final action token will be recorded in the
minutes which will be available in the Office of the Secretory to the Redevelopment Agency
and the City Clerk's Office.
10. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING EXISTING LITIGATION -- Pursuant to
Government Code Section 54956.9(a)
a. Agency vs. Rados Bros. [Case No. GIC734557 - 1]
- ..
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM NO.: I
MEETING DATE: 09/12/00
ITEM TITLE: RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL CONTRACT AMENDMENT FOR
LEGAL SERVICES IN THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT FOR NEGOTIATIONS ON THE GATEWAY CHULA
VISTA PROJECT
SUBMITTED BY: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR ~.~ c..S
REVIEWED BY: EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (Ql~1 ¡tJ
"'..
4/STHS VOTE: YESDNO0
BACKGROUND
The Redevelopment Agency completed negotiations for the development of approximately 4.5
acres of properly located at the northwest comer of Third Avenue and H Street in June of this
year. This action formally amends the contract with Stradling Yocca Carlson and Rauth to
provide for final payment for legal services rendered during the completion of the Disposition
and Development Agreement (DDA) approved by the Agency Board on June 6, 2000. The
adopted Agency budget has sufficient funds for payment of the services; however, an amendment
to the existing contract to cover the additional cast is necessary.
RECOMMENDATION
That the Redevelopment Agency adopt a resolution approving an amendment of the legal
services contract with Stradling Yocca Carlson and Rauth.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION
Not Applicable.
DISCUSSION
legal services for the Gateway Chula Vista Project have been utilized to provide assistance in
project negotiations and in the preparation of required legal documents. The negotiations were
extensive and ultimately resulted in the preparation and adoption of a DDA as well as associated
documents that were approved on June 6, 2000.
This action amends the legal services contract in order to make the final payment for services
rendered during the negotiation process. The cost for legal services exceeded original estimates
1- I
- -
PAGE 2, ITEM NO.: !
MEETING DATE: 09/12/00
primarily because the structure of the deal changed mid-stream due to developer financing needs
which in turn, caused the negotiations to become more complex and protracted. Due to timing
issues and staff workload, the contract amount issue was not discovered until recently.
FISCAL IMPACT
Final consultant services for the Gateway Project are $31,824.03. The Agency currently retains
Straddling Yocca Carlson & Rauth to provide legal services on a project-by-project basis. The
following costs should be sufficient to finalize required legal services for the Gateway Chula Vista
Project:
Straddling Yocca Carlson & Rauth
Legal Services: Gateway $31,824.03
Funds are available in the current year Bayfront/T awn Centre I Professional Services account
budget. The current approved contract amount is $107,320. With this action, the total contract
amount will be $139,144.03.
H, \HOME\ C OMMO EV\ST AFF. RE p\strod I; n91; no I. doc
I-d-..
- ..
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY
OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING FINAL CONTRACT AMENDMENT
FOR LEGAL SERVICES IN THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT FOR NEGOTIATIONS ON THE GATEWAY CHULA
VISTA PROJECT
WHEREAS, Agency staff has completed negotiating a Disposition and
Development Agreement (DDA) with Gateway Chula Vista LLC for development of
approximately 4.5 acres of property located at the northwest corner of Third Avenue
and H Street; and
WHEREAS, due to the complexity of the terms of said Agreement, Agency
staff and Gateway Chula Vista LLC agreed that additional legal consultant services
were necessary to complete negotiations and document preparation; and
WHERAS, Agency staff required general advice on special financing
vehicles; and
WHEREAS, the Agency has an approved list of professionals to provide legal
services on a project-by-project basis, and Straddling Yocca Carlson & Rauth is
included on said list; and
WHEREAS, the final cost of legal services exceeded the contract amount by
$31,824.03;
NOW, THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED the Redevelopment Agency of the
City of Chula Vista does hereby authorize a contract amendment for an additional
$31,824.03 for legal services provided by Straddling Yocca Carlson & Rauth for the
Gateway Chula Vista project.
PRESENTED BY APPROVED AS TO FORM BY
Cho. C6: ~-
Director of Community Development
H: IHOMEICOMM DEVIRE SOSlstraddl i ng2000ti nal. d oc
/~3
..
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM NO.: d-
MEETING DATE: 09/12/00
ITEM TITLE: RESOLUTION ADOPTING NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS-OO-22,
APPROVING A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND OWNER
PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT WITH COMMUNITY HEALTH GROUP
FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 46-SPACE PARKING LOT WITHIN THE
BAYFRONT REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
SUBMITTED BY: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR L-.~~ t.-<;
REVIEWED BY: EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ú'j( 9'('-'
¡,
4/51HS VOlE: YES DNO0
BACKGROUND
Community Health Group is proposing a 46-space parking lot to be locoted at the southeast
corner of Bay Boulevard and J Street, across the street from their existing facility. The location is
a vacant and difficult to develop .48 acre parcel, part of which is bisected by a drainage
structure. The Bayfront Specific Plan, which is also the Local Coastal Plan (LCP), identifies the
allowable land use as Commercial Visitor/Highway and requires a Coastal Development Permit.
The proposed land use as a parking lot is subject to Design Review Committee recommendation
and Agency approval.
The proposed land use is consistent with the City's Municipal Code and General Plan, the
Bayfront Specific Plan and LCP, and the Bayfront Redevelopment Plan and Implementation Plan.
The Community Development Department's Planning and Environmental Manager reviewed the
proposed project pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, and
determined that there are no significant impacts and recommends adoption of Negative
Declaration IS-OO-22. In addition, the Agency has received assurances that Community Health
Group will be moving forvvard with an adjoining Class A office development on the remaining
vacant land adjacent to the subject parcel. Issues associated with that potential development and
with covering of the drainage channel that splits the two properties will be addressed during such
time that the adjoining office development application is submitted to staff.
The Bayfront Redevelopment Plan requires that Community Health Group enter into an Owner
Participation Agreement (OPA), which includes the design plans and a list of conditions. The OPA,
along with the required Coastal Development Permit, is being presented to the Redevelopment
Agency for consideration and approval.
a-I
- ..
PAGE 2, IIEM NO.: J--
MEETING DATE: 09/12/00
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Redevelopment Agency approve the resolution adopting Negative
Declaration IS-00-22, and approve the Coastal Development Permit and Owner Participation
Agreement with Community Health Group to develop a 46-space parking lot.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION
The Design Review Committee reviewed the proposed project on August 21, 2000 and
recommended approval of the Negative Declaration to the Redevelopment Agency, subject to the
conditions attached and made a part of the Owner Participation Agreement.
DISCUSSION
Project Setting
The project site consists of a vacant near-level graded AB-acre site located at the southeast
carner of Bay Boulevard and J Street in the Bayfront Redevelopment Project Area.
The project site has been cleared of all vegetation and does not represent viable habitat for any
sensitive animal species. Surrounding uses and zoning include the following:
. North: J Street and Vacant Visitor Commercial; CV-H (Commercial Visitor-Highway)
. East: Interstate 5
. South: Vacant Visitor Commercial; CV-H (Commercial Visitor-Highway)
. West: Bay Boulevard
Over the years, the site has been evaluated for development opportunities. Unfortunately, due to
market issues and the high cast of covering the drainage channel, the property has not been a goad
candidate for development. At this time, the proposed parking lot is needed, but can be re-used as
part of a larger development in the future if necessary.
Praiect Description
Community Health Group proposes to construct a 46-space parking lot that will be used for
additional parking for their facility on Bay Boulevard.
The proposed use (parking lot) is consistent with the project site's zoning and land use
designation, which is Commercial Visitor-Highway (CV-H).
Site Plan and Parkina:
The proposed development is a parking lot and associated landscaping and curb, gutter and
sidewalk hardscape. The parking lot will accommodate approximately 46 cars and will include
the requisite number of parking spaces for the disabled.
d-d--
- ..
PAGE 3, ITEM NO.: .J-
MEETING DATE: 09/12/00
New landscaped areas ta include grass turf and shrubs will be provided along the perimeter of
the project site, and will be concentrated along J Street and Bay Boulevard. The landscape plan
will be approved by the Design Review Committee before installation.
Owner Participation Aareement
The Owner Participation Agreement (OPA) runs with the land and outlines developer responsibilities.
Among others, Community Health Group will be required to:
1. Develop the property in accordance with the approved development proposal subject to the
conditions of all City Departments and the Design Review Committee;
2. Submit a sign program and landscape plan to the Design Review Committee for
consideration;
3. Secure all necessary permits; and
4. Maintain the property in first class condition.
Conclusion
Staff recommends approval of the Negative Declaration, Coastal Development Permit and
Owner Participation Agreement. The proposed project will be beneficial for the City, because it
will convert a vacant parcel into a higher and better use, bring new private sector investment into
the project area, and contribute to the elimination of blighting influences
The proiect is consistent with the City's Municipal Code and General Plan, and the Bayfront
Specific Plan/LCP and Bayfront Redevelopment Plan and Implementation Plan.
FISCAL IMPACT
The proposed proiect has an estimated valuation of $125,000 over base year value. This will
generate an annual tax-increment revenue of approximately $1,250 which will be distributed as
follows: Twenty percent ($250) for the Housing Set-Aside fund; and the remaining eighty percent
($1,000) will accrue to the Bayfrant/T own Centre I Redevelopment Project Area fund.
ATTACHMENTS
Locator Map
Attachment A - Negative Declaration
Attachment B - Owner Participation Agreement
Exhibit A - Design Plans
Exhibit B - Design Review and Agency Conditions of Approval
H,\HOME\COMMDEV\STAFF.REP\O9-12-00\COMMHEALTH PARKINGAS.DOC
c::J - ~=)
- ..
AGENCY RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
ADOPTING NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS-OO-22, APPROVING COASTAL DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT AND OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT WITH COMMUNITY HEALTH GROUP
FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 46-SPACE PARKING LOT WITHIN THE BAYFRONT
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
WHEREAS, Community Health Group has presented development plans for the construction of a 46
space parking lot, accessory to their main facility an Bay Boulevard; and
WHEREAS, the project site consists of a vacant A8-acre site located at APN 571-170-10 at the southeast
corner of Bay Boulevard and J Street in the Bayfront Redevelopment Project Area under the jurisdiction and
control of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista, which is shown in the Locater Map attached to
the Owner Participation Agreement and incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, The City's Community Development Department Planning and Environmental Manager
reviewed the proposed project and issued Negative Declaration IS-00-22 for the project in accordance with
CEOA; and
WHEREAS, after a public hearing the Design Review Committee reviewed and recommended that the
Redevelopment Agency approve the proposed project subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit B of the Owner
Participation Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista has presented an Owner Participation
Agreement, said agreement being an file in the Office of the Secretary to the Redevelopment Agency and known
as document RACO 00-_, approving the development of a parking lot in the Bayfrant Redevelopment Project
Area, as depicted in Exhibit A and subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit B of said agreement; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA does hereby find, order, determine and resolve as follows:
1. The proposed project will not have a significant impact on the environment; accordingly Negative Declaration
IS-00-22 was prepared and is hereby adopted in accordance with CEOA.
2. The proposed project is allowed under the City of Chula Vista Municipal Code and General Plan, the Bayfront
Specific Plan and Local Coastal Program, and is consistent with the Bayfront Redevelopment Plan and
Implementation Plan.
3. The proposed project will be beneficial for the City of Chula Vista, because it will convert a vacant parcel into
a higher and better use, bring new private sector investment into the project area, and contribute to the
elimination of blighting influences.
4. The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista hereby approves the Coastal Development Permit and
Owner Participation Agreement with Community Health Group for the construction of a 46 space parking lot at
the southeast corner of Bay Boulevard and J Street in the Bayfront Redevelopment Project Area, in the form
presented in accordance with plans attached thereto as Exhibit A and subject to the conditions listed in
Exhibit B of said agreement.
5. The Chairman of the Redevelopment Agency is hereby authorized to execute the subject Owner Participation
Agreement between the Redevelopment Agency and Community Health Group.
6. The Secretary of the Redevelopment Agency is authorized to record said Owner Participation Agreement in
the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego, California.
Presented by Approved as to form by
& ~.
Chris Salomone
Community Development Director .~ - cf-
H: IHOM E\COMM OEVlRESOS\comm health pa rki n9 reso. doc
- ..
\~ ' ~
¿~\I, .' '~\ð?" ~f\,;',I,,~,,', ',~,I~"',I,',(Î,~.~~~, ~\. \ \~" ','
, (\J\ ~~ ~~ °0 : r-\ \B ~'9
~ \, \ ~~II, ,- aD) ~~
I \ ~,~~"~'~~
I,~ \ ~ ~,'~ \~,;' ~, ," " ~~I'I!':
\ ~ I \~' \ I -d ~ ----- ~\ '~ ' í§i
1'\ \ ,,~çJ., I I '-
\ I~ \ \ , \ I . ,.~,\~~D\~ 'c------\ \ ~" \ B; " ~
II \ ~ \ \ ,a. c../" \
\, ~ \ I ~~,(\\\, ,', ' " Sf\,', CHULAVISTA" ' ~',\ ~I,',--ê", ,
',,- ,\\ J ,', '~~ \~ CENTER í'~ I I ~I\Í--\,,'
, \ \L/ I ...ê,--/.::="'" \ \.\I-~
'\ \ \Y" \ I 'A" :Y{~\\ rÎ \' ~'~"" " .,' ' ~ " \-ç
\ \ \\ \ ~ '~:~-~~BB;:$' ~\'5
\" I\~\'~MUELLER'~\'"",~,\~, ,,~~ffi\,', : ~,~,~,""", \ " ~
~ "ELEMENTARY ~\:B' ~ ~ '~ ~ \W
S\\,',\. , \\,,\~ \,~ \SCHOOL ~rD",'~~,':~,' ',,~.,'~/,\;::5.ç,n,\'3,",'~,'~,,------~', 1",í;::P~,I~",1
, " \ \ '~\:}-'\ ~ \:::::\J \-:\ \_JD ~".-:::;::: -'" ' =?c' ~
, /" \, \ r v-' ,~ v n v ,';:::t::' --- ~ " , ~
/ "i \ \~, ~" '. \ ç ,.~, ~'~.r,,-\ û%\IÇ- 'Y,~"",-,' -,,~C\:..J~, çr\,~
\\ \ í I' ,....I-": f' ::;¡, ~ ~ ---'I~ \,
r~'" ~'\\"I"", \"\",\"\~"'"",,,\,, .~~\"'""".,\/~.'\~,£.'~,Y,::-:~,",',.,~~'~',',',','"m,'~,r",'~?'- ~,'-\~~,~"\"---',,,I,.,,,-'~"',"'",,\1',',',', ""~,"~;~'¿-~~,,,,~"'~,,'
~ \ , \ \I~ ~ ' 'ç:V,~&j U,.-- ~'c' --\\\~ \::'9 \:::'rj C'---'
17 1 \ '" \ -'^'.' Y-í::' ',- -\, ' ,\;::! , ~\.-, (', --- \ " \::\,::I \:::Y.- C'C'
/\~,'~ , 1:"",1,:'","'" ",' , \r,','",û'II.\ , \:~,~~,,\, ',~~\, '-1'~'\.':"\;;.J""""",,,~,¿r,~,c,¡,'~~,~'~,\---, """Î"I~' n-""\,:,2,,,..-,~.-.,"-"..-\'.',,"I, ' ,~f~,""",'I);-','I=;;::'Ç,:","
"0\ 'I \ I, \~I--' \~ ~ <,..-rJ \\\\f~IiIiß , \J..- .--a ,'~
W" I 1 ~\\J 'I' \::ý\ r5~\'\ " , ,'It: ' " "
~ I' W ~\":'í;::ûV ~ '~I ',\
J:L:¡\ Y -- ~Ie'" \W$'~ "'" ,ç;:" Ie'
" \ " 1\ \~~B -' d) BJ ø' , ,
\ "'~"-._~,l-~'\l ~ \ \~~ ~\B?, ~ m ~~ ' -:3' ~r
~ /!~""",I""--,/=_~\" \'.'~~,,~~",'@, ",--r~,'n",~,;,~W,,'\\ ~"'\..--,I,,\'.I,, r'~~'~,'"""'.',".,,." "',' ",\.
~r '~ ~~'\@~ \lôG ~~v ~ \
I '\\~ \\)D~I ~~~ ' L~-C/~~~\
\ I~ \~ \\"WI ", -,¡\~\%\\
PROlE \ 1\\ \ ~ \11~\~rC~kJB c~~
lOC'ION ~ \ \ \ 'rW'?íW\i,@~~\ ~\S\\?-",,\;
CHULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR PROJECT COMMUNITY HEALTH GROUP PROJECTDESCRIPTlON:
C) APPLICANT: OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT
PRoJECT Southeast corner of "J" Street
ADDRESS: and Bay Boulevard. Request: Proposed parking lot to provide 46 additional
parking spaces for the adjacent Community
SCALE: I FILE NUMBER: Health Group facility.
NORTH No Scale I IS - 00-22
h:\homelplanning\hecior\locatorslisO022.cdr 02/23/00 ,~-:::;:-
f
" )
negative declaration
-
2:::13-66'!
PROJECT NAME: Community Health Group Parking Lot
PROJECT LOCATION: SEC of"]" Street & Bay Blvd. W., City ofChula Vista
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: 571-170-100
PROJECT APPLICANT: Community Health Group
CASE NO.: IS-OO-22 DATE: April 28, 2000
A. Proiect Setting
The project site consists of a vacant near-level graded 21,126 square foot site located on the -
south east comer of "J" Street and Bay Boulevard West in the City's Bayfront
Redevelopment Area. Surrounding uses are as follows: North: (across "j" Street) -Vacant
Lot; East: 1-5 freeway; South: stonn drain channel & vacant lot & Community Health Group
building; West: (across Bay Blvd. W. & R.R. r.o.w.) - Marina View Park.
The project site has been cleared of all vegetation and graded, and therefore does nor
represent viable habitat for any sensitive animal species.
"]" Street is designated as a four-lane major arterial, by the City's Circulation Element. Bay
Boulevard West is a two-lane collector.
B. Project Description
The proposed project consists of a proposed 46-space parking lot to serve for overflow
purposes to the existing Community Health Group building. The applicant is proposing to
install one driveway on Bay Boulevard West to serve the proposed parking lot. New
landscaped areas, will be provided essentially along the perimeter oJ the pr.oject site with
special emphasis on the comer area of Bay Boulevard West and "J" Street. The landscaped
I area will include grass turf and trees- The total on-site and off-site landscaping area
proposed is 3,805 square feet or 18% of the total parcel area.
The project will require granting of a discretionary permit of approval fÌom the City of Chula
Vista Design Review Committee and the Redevelopment Agency.
C. Compatibilitv with Zoning and Plans
The current zoning on-site is ILP (Limited Industrial Precise Plan) and the site is designared
A:\llb\linda\is9807.neg Page,
.~-~ ~If?
-.-
. -::.:::::::-
'--- ~"" ~I ~".." ,,1.'. -,---,-- -----'-.-' --
- ..
as Visitor Commercial use by the City's General Plan. The proposed project is in
compliance with the Zoning designation and the adopted General Plan.
D. Identification of Environmental Effects
An Initial Study conducted by the City of Chula Vista (including an attached Environmental
Checklist form) determined that the proposed project will not have a significant
environmental effect, and the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report will not be
required. This Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with Section 15070 of
the State CEQA Guidelines.
I. Public Services Impact
Fire
The nearest fire station is located about 3 miles from the project site. The estimated
response time is less than seven (6) minutes. The response time complies with the
City Threshold Standards for fire and medical response time.
Police
The Police Department indicates that current levels of service and response time will
be provided to the proposed land uses.
2. Utili tv and Service Svstems
Soils
The applicant will be required to prepare an soils report as part of the standard
conditions of the proposed grading plan. The applicant shall comply with the
applicable recommendations as determined by the City engineer.
Drainage
On-site
The Engineering Division indicates that on-site drainage patterns will need to
COIU1ect to public storm drain facilities. The applicant will be required as a standard
condition by the Engineering Division to submit a hydraulic study with the first
submittal of grading/improvement plans. The on-site drainage plan will address the
prevention of contamination of the existing drainage channel from potential trash and
pollutants accumulating on the parking lot surface.
A:\lIb\linda\ís9807.neg Page 2
.~ - 7
- .-
Off-site
The Engineering Division states that there is an grate inlet on the northwest comer
of the site. Through the preparation and submittal of the drainage plan with the first
submittal of grading/improvement plans, the Engineering Division will be able to
confirm the adequacy of off-site drainage facilities. The developer is required to
implement Best Management Practices to prevent pollution of stonn drainage
facilities per City of Chula Vista Municipal code 14.20. A National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Pennit is not required because the subject
site is less than five acres.
Sewer
Since the project does not propose the generate sewer waste, the City adopted Sewer
Threshold Standards do not apply.
Streetsffraffic
The Threshold Standards Policy requires that all signalized arterial segments operate
at a Level of Service (LOS) "C" or better, with the exception that Level of Service
(LOS) "D" may occur during the peak two hours of the day at signalized
intersections. No intersection may reach an LOS "F" during the average weekday
peak hour. Intersections of arterials ",ith freeway ramps are exempt from this policy.
The Engineering Division indicates that the project will not generate any vehicular
trips since it is associated with an existing business. The proposed project would
therefore comply with this Threshold Policy for the immediately affected intersection
of "1" Street and Bay Boulevard West.
3. Noise
Temporary construction noise would occur at the site, however, the short tenn nature
of the noise, the proximity of a major arterial and freeway and the
commercial/industrial nature of the surTOunding area results in less than significant
impacts. No mitigation will be required.
4. Aesthetics
The proposed project will be subject to review and approval by the Design Review
Committee (DRC). The proposed site plan, landscaping and lighting plans will be
subject to review by the DRC to ensure the proposed project will complement
surrounding development and comply with all applicable design and landscaping
standards.
A:lllbllindalis9807.neg Page 3
.~ -?
- ..
Case No. IS-00-22
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Name of Proponent: Community Health Group
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City afChula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
3. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 740 Bay Blvd.
Chula Vista, CA. 91910
(619) 498-6443
4. Name of Proposal: C.H.G. Parking Lot
5. Date of Checklist: April 27, 2000
p",",;,II,
p"'"';,II, S;g";fin"' l=<h,"
Si",ifin"' u",= S;g";On"' "
Imp'" >I;';gm" Imp'" Imp'"
1. LA.."'ffi USE AND PLANNI;-;G: Would the
proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or 0 0 0 0
zoning?
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or 0 0 0 0
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction
over the project?
c) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., 0 0 0 0
impacts to soils or fannlands, or impacts from
incompatible land uses)?
d) Disrupt or divide the physical aITangement of 0 0 0 0
an established community (including a low-
,. income or minority community)?
Comments: The vacant site is zoned Industrial (I) and designated for Visitor Commercial use by the
City's General Plan. The proposed project would require review and approval by the
Design Review Committee and Redevelopment Agency. No impacts or conflicts with
the zoning or General Plan are noted.
A:\lIb\Jinda\is9808ck.frm Page 1
,~ -7
- ..
P"'"I,lIy
P""""'y SI,,;flu" L~, <h"
SI"lnu" ",I'M SI"ln"" "
Imp'" >II';",... Imp'" Imp",
II. POPULA nON AND HOUSING: Would the
proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local 0 0 0 ¡;
population projections?
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either 0 0 0 ¡;
directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in
an undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)?
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable 0 0 0 ¡;
housing?
Comments: Project implementation would not contribute to local papulation growth nor displacement
of existing housing. No adverse impacts are noted.
III. GEOPHYSICAL: Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Unstable earth conditions or changes in 0 0 0 ¡;
geologic substructures?
b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or 0 0 0 ¡;
overcovering of the soil?
c) Change in topography or ground surface relief 0 0 0 ¡;
features?
d) The destruction, covering or modification of 0 0 0 ¡;
any unique geologic or physical features?
e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, 0 0 0 ¡;
either on or off the site?
f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach 0 0 0 ¡;
sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or
erosion which may modify the channel of a
~ river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any
bay inlet or lake?
g) Exposure of people or property to geologic 0 0 0 ¡;
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud
slides, ground failure, or similar hazards?
Comments: The project does not propose any structures. The Engineering Division indicates that
a soils report will be required with the first submittal of grading and improvement plans.
This will be a standard Engineering Division requirement. No mitigation will be
required.
A:lllb\lindalis9808ck.fnn Page 2
.;;:J - / C;
- ..
P",.,'oll,
P"',"oll, ",.,""., L='ho.
s".m"., ".1..0 ",.m"., N,
Impo" 'liil""" Impo" Imp",
IV. WATER: Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, 0 0 '" 0
or the rate and amount of surface runoff?
b) Exposure of people or property to water related 0 0 0 II
hazards such as flooding or tidal waves?
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration 0 0 0 C3J
of surface water c¡uality (e.g., temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any 0 0 0 '"
water body?
e) Changes in currents, or the course of direction 0 0 0 II
of water movements, in either marine or fresh
waters?
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either 0 0 0 II
through direct additions or withdrawals, or
through interception of an aquifer by cuts or
excavations?
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of 0 0 0 '"
groundwater?
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? 0 0 0 II
i) Alterations to the course or flow of flood 0 0 0 '"
waters?
j) Substantial reduction in the amount of water 0 0 0 II
othervvise available for public water supplies"
Comments: The Engineering Division indicates that the project site is located in a SOD-year flood
boundary as delineated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) maps.
The City has storm drainage facilities adjacent to the project site that would result in
proper conveyance of any potential flood waters. No adverse impact regarding flood
waters is noted. The Engineering Division indicates that on-site drainage facilities need
to take into consideration pollution prevention measures to prevent trash and pollution
from the parking lot from entering the adjoining storm drain channel. The Engineering
Division will not require a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) nor a
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDESS) due to the size and type of
project. As a standard condition of the grading permit the applicant will be required to
implement Best Management practices to prevent pollution of storm drainage systems.
No adverse impacts are noted. No mitigation will be required.
V. AIR QUALITY: Would the proposal:
A:lllbllindalis9808ck.frm Page 3
,;:2 -- ( I
- ..
Po",,'i,",
Po""'i,", Si",;n~", L=,"",
Si",;n~", ""'= S¡,nifi~n' No
Imp", Mi'i,..", Imp", Imp",
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to 0 0 0 I8J
an existing or projected air quality violation?
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? 0 0 0 I8J
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, 0 0 0 I8J
or cause any change in climate, either locally or
regionally?
d) Create objectionable odors? 0 0 0 I8J
e) Create a substantial increase in stationary or 0 0 0 I8J
non-stationary sources of air emissions or the
deterioration of ambient air quality?
Comments: No impacts to air quality are noted since the project will not be generating new vehicular
trips, but will accommodate an existing business.
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION: Would
the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? 0 0 0 I8J
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., 0 0 0 ø
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to 0 0 0 I8J
nearby uses?
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? 0 0 0 I8J
e) Hazards or baITiers for pedestrians or 0 0 0 I8J
bicyclists?
f) Conflicts with adapted policies supporting 0 0 0 I8J
alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? 0 0 0 I8J
,<
h) A "large project" under the Congestion 0 0 0 I8J
Management Program? (An equivalent of2400
or more average daily vehicle trips or 200 or
more peak-hour vehicle trips.)
Comments: The City of Chula Vista Engineering indicates that the project will not generate new
vehicular trips since the parking lot is associated with an existing business. The
Engineering Division states that "J" Street and Bay Boulevard will maintain a Level of
Service "C" or better. The project will not require traffic mitigation but will be subject
A;\lIb\linda\is9808ck.frm Page 4
-;J - /d--
-
P","",II,
p"""'¡,II, S;,";fi,,"' L~,<h,"
S¡,";fi,,", v""" S;g"m,,", '"
Imp", """",d Imp", Imp",
to standard right-of-way dedication and improvements for Bay Blvd. West and street
improvements along "1" Street, as well as widening and improvements to the
IntersectIon.
VlI. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the
proposal result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, sensitive species, species of 0 0 0 ~
concern or species that are candidates for
listing?
b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage 0 0 0 ~
trees)?
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g, 0 0 0 ~
oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)?
d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and 0 0 0 ~
vernal pool)?
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 0 0 0 ~
f) Affect regional habitat preservation planning 0 0 0 ~
efforts?
Comments: The project site is located in an urbanized area and has been cleared of all vegetation.
Environmental staff have conducted field visits and have found no sensitive plant or
animal species on-site. No impacts to biological resources are noted. No mitigation is
required.
VlII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES:
Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation 0 0 0 ~
plans?
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and 0 0 0 ~
inefficient manner?
c) If the site is designated for mineral resource 0 0 0 ~
protection. will this project impact this
protection?
Comments: No impacts to non-renewable resources are noted.
IX. HAZARDS: Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of 0 0 0 ~
A:lllbllimialis9808ck.fm> Page 5
,;) -/3
- ..
P"ml"",
P."n""~ Stg.tOa" L~Ih,"
Sig.""'" U.,~ Sign"'a.' N.
Imp", hltl'g"'" Imp'" Imp",
hazardous substances (including, but not limited
to: petroleum products, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation)?
b) Possible interference with an emergency 0 0 0 ~
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential 0 0 0 ~
health hazard?
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of 0 0 0 ~
potential health hazards?
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable 0 0 0 ~
brush, grass, or trees?
Comments: The proposed project will comply with all applicable required permitting processes
administered by the City ofChula Vista. No adverse impacts are noted. No mitigation
will be required.
X. NOISE: Would the proposal resllit in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? 0 0 ~ 0
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 0 0 0 ~
Comments: Temporary construction noise would occur at the site, however, the short term nature
of the noise, the proximity of Interstate 5 freeway and the commercial nature of the
surrounding area results in less than significant impacts. No adverse impacts are
noted. No mitigation will be required.
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES: Would the proposal have
an effect upon, ar result in a needfar new or
altered government services in any af the following
areas:
a) Fire protection? 0 0 0 ~
b) Police protection? 0 0 0 ~
c) Schools? 0 0 0 ~
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including 0 0 0 ~
roads?
e) Other governmental services? 0 0 0 ~
Comments: No new Governmental services will be required to serve the project. No adverse impacts
are noted. Fire and police protection can adequately be provided. Street dedication and
improvements along "J" Street and Bay Boulevard West will be made in accordance
A:\lIbIJindalis9808ck.frm Page 6
~-I<j
- ..
P"~<¡"'y
P'<~<¡"'y S;..;fi~., 1=<'0'
S;..¡fi~.. U.I= S;,.¡fi~.. N.
Imp", >!¡'¡g"" Imp'" Imp",
with City Standards. No mitigation will be required.
D D D '"
XlI. THRESHOLDS: Will the proposal adversely
impact the City's Threshold Standards?
As described below, the proposed project does not adversely impact any of the seen
Threshold Standards.
a) FirelEMS D D D '"
The Threshold Standards requires that fire and medical units must be able to respond to calls
within 7 minutes or less in 85% of the cases and within 5 minutes or less in 75% of the
cases. The City of Chula Vista has indicated that this threshold standard will be met, since
the nearest fire station is 3 miles away and would be associated with a less than 7-minute
response time. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard.
Comments: The Fire Department indicates that adequate fire service and protection can be
provided to the proposed project site.
b) Police 0 0 '" D
The Threshold Standards require that police units must respond to 84% of Priority 1 calls
within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority I calls of 4.5
minutes or less. Police units must respond to 62.10% of Priority 2 calls within 7 minutes or
less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 2 calls af7 minutes or less. The
proposed project is located in an area where police ART complies with these Threshold
Stannards.
Comments: Crime Prevention personnel are available to assist the applicant with security
recommendations. No adverse impacts to Police service are noted. The Police
Department indicates that they will continue to provide CUITent levels of service to the
project area. No mitigation will be required.
c) Traffic 0 D '" D
The Threshold Standards require that all signalized arterial segments operate at a Level
of Service (LOS) "C" or better, with the exception that Level of Service (LOS) "0" may
occur during the peak two hours of the day. Intersections west ofI-80S are not to operate
at a LOS below their 1987 LOS. No intersection may reach LOS "E" or "F" during the
average weekday peak hour. Intersections of arterials with freeway ramps are exempted
from this Standard. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard.
Comments: The Engineering Division indicates that the CUITent Level-of- Service (LOS) "C" or better
enjoyed by "J" Street, a four-lane major arterial, and Bay Blvd. West, two lane
collector, would remain the same with approval of the proposed project.
d) ParkslRecreation D 0 D '"
A:\lIbUinda\is9808ck.frm Page 7
~). (S-
..
."..",11,
..,..,',11, SI,.III..., """..
SI,.III,,", U.I~. ",,",",,", N.
Imp'" 'Ii"""" Imp", Imp",
The Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3 acres/l ,000 popularion. This
standard does not apply to the proposed project.
Comments: No adverse impacts to parks or recreational opportunities are noted.
e) Drainage 0 0 0 ¡¡i
The Threshold Standards require that stonn water flaws and volumes not exceed
City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary
improvements consistent with the Drainage Master Plan(s) and City Engineering
Standards. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard.
Comments: Off-site drainage capacities will not be affected by project approval.
f) Sewer 0 0 0 ¡;
The Threshold Standards require that sewage flows and volumes not excero City
Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements
consistent with Sewer Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards- The
proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard.
Comments: Sewer capacities will not be adversely affected through project implementation. The
project will not require sewer hook-ups.
g) Water 0 0 0 0
The Threshold Standards require that adequate storage, treatment, and tranSiTIission facilities
are constructed concurrently with planned growth and that water quality Standards are not
jeopardized during growth and construction. The proposed project will comply with this
Threshold Standard.
Applicants may also be required to participate in whatever water conservation or fee off-
set program the City ofChula Vista has in effect at the time of building p¿nnit issuance.
Comments: Water quality standards would not be affected through project implementation. The
project will not require water hook-up.
XIII UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would
the proposal result in a need for new systems, or
substantial alterations to the following u/ìlìties:
h) Power or natural gas? 0 0 0 ¡;
i) Communications systems? 0 0 0 ¡;
j) Local or regional water treatment or distribution 0 0 0 ¡;
facilities?
A;\llb\linda\is9808ck.frm Page 8
~- (&~
- ..
P"ro';""
P""';"', S;,.;fi"., Lao"..
s;,.m..., U.lm S;,.;fi".. No
Imp", "1'1,..... Imp,," Imp",
k) Sewer or septic tanks? 0 0 0 ~
I) Stonn water drainage? 0 0 0 ~
m) Solid waste disposal? 0 0 0 ~
Comments: The proposed uses will not generate a need for new systems or alteration to the
aforementioned utilities. No mitigation will be required.
XIV AESTHETICS: Would the proposal:
n) Obstruct any scenic vista or view open to the 0 0 0 ~
public or will the proposal result in the creation
of an aesthetically offensive site open to public
view?
0) Cause the destruction or modification of a 0 0 0 ~
scenic route?
p) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? 0 0 I>J 0
q) Create added light or glare sources that could 0 0 0 ~
increase the level of sky glow in an area or
cause this project to fail to comply with Section
19.66.100 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code,
Title 19?
r) Reduce an additional amount of spill light? 0 0 0 ~
Comments: Approval of the project parking lot design and landscaping is subject to a discretionary
Design Review process. This process will help ensure that the project design is
consistent with the goals and objectives of the Bayfront Specific Plan. No mitigation
will be required.
XV CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the proposal:
s) Will the proposal result in the alteration of or 0 0 0 ~
the destruction or a prehistoric or historic
archaeological site?
t) Will the proposal result in adverse physical or 0 0 0 ~
aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic
building, structure or object?
u) Does the proposal have the potential to cause a 0 0 0 ~
physical change which would affect unique
ethnic cultural values?
v) Will the proposal restrict existing religious or 0 0 0 ~
sacred uses within the potential impact area?
Aolllbliindalis9808ck.fnn Page 9
,~- (7
- ..
p",",;,II,
P",,",',II, Slg"'II,,", 1.="'"
Slg"'O,,", U"'~ 51",,0,,", '"
Imp'" ""lIg,.." Imp", Imp",
w) Is the area identified on the City's General Plan 0 0 0 C!S
EIR as an area of high potential for
archeological resources?
Comments: There are no identified cultural resources within the project area.
XVI PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Will the
proposal result in the alteration of or the 0 0 0 C!S
destruction of paleontological resources?
Comments: There are no paleontological resources within the project area.
XVII RECREATION: Would the proposal:
x) Increase the demand for neighborhood or 0 0 0 C!S
regional parks or other recreational facilities?
y) Affect existing recreational opportunities? 0 0 '0 C!S
z) Interfere with recreation parks & recreation 0 0 0 C!S
plans or programs?
Comments: There are no recreational facilities that will be adversely affected by the project. The
proposed project will provide needed parking for a health group.
XVIII MANDATORY FDìHNGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE: See Negative Declarationfor
mandatory findings of significance. If an EIR is
needed, this section should be completed.
z) Does the project have the potential to degrade 0 0 0 C!S
the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to
eli'minate a plant or animal community, reduce
the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods or
California history or prehistory?
Comments: As the site is an vacant and cleared site within an urbanized area, no sensitive plant or
animal resources will be affected.
aa) Does the project have the potential to achieve 0 0 0 C!S
short-tenn, to the disadvantage oflong-tenn,
environmental goals?
A:lllbllindalis9808ck,frm Page 10
.~ - (Ç'J
..
P"'n'¡'I~
P",n".", S;,n;fion' L=".n
S;,n;fi..n' "nl= Si:n;fi..n, No
Imp'« >Ii';""" Imp.« Imp",
Comments: The scope and nature of the project would not result in the curtailment of any long-term
environmental goals.
bb) Does the project have impacts that are 0 0 0 c¡;
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects.)
Comments: There are no incremental impacts associated with the project.
cc) Does the project have environmental effect 0 0 0 c¡;
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Comments: No adverse effects to human beings is anticipated from project approval.
XIX. PROJECT REVISIONS OR l\'llTIGATION MEASURES: NO MITIGTION MEASURES WILL
BE REQUIRED
XX. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: NO"t: CHECKED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated," as
indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
0 Land Us,e and Planning 0 Transportation/Circulation 0 Public Services
0 Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources 0 Utilities and Service
Systems
0 Geophysical 0 Energy and Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics
0 Water 0 Hazards 0 Cultural Resources
0 Air Quality 0 Noise 0 Recreation
0 Mandatory Findings of Significance
XXI. DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the ~
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
A:\llb\linda\is9808ck.frm Page 11
C
,~ - (7
- -
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the 0
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an 0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MA Y have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but 0
at least one effect: I) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the
earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant
impacts" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially 0
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to
applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR,
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
An addendum has been prepared to provide a record of this detennination.
B~ April 27. 2000
Date
Planning & Environmental Manager
City ofChula Vista
A:\lIb\Jinda\is9808ck.frm Page 12
(;) - 'OJ... C
-
Recording Requested By:
CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
When Recorded Mail To:
CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Attn: Judi Bell
(Space Above Thjs Line For Recorder)
APN: 571-170-10
OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT
Community Health Group
(Southeast Comer of J Street and Bay Boulevard)
THIS AGREEMENT ("AGREEMENT") is entered into by the REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA, a public body corporate and politic (hereinafter referred to as "AGENCY"), and Community Health
Group, a California Corporation, ("DEVELOPER") effective as of August 22,2000.
WHEREAS, the DEVELOPER desires to develop real property within the BAYFRONT REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT AREA which is subject to the jurisdiction and control of the AGENCY; and,
WHEREAS, the DEVELOPER has presented plans for development to the Design Review Committee for the
construction of a 46-space parking lot on a vacant .48 acre irregular shaped parcel within Subarea 2 (Industrial Subarea)
of the Baytront Specific Plan (the "Project"); and,
WHEREAS, said plans for development have been recommended for approval by said committee; and,
WHEREAS, the AGENCY has considered the Design Review Committee's recommendation and has approved
the Project and design plans subject to certain terms and conditions; and,
WHEREAS, the AGENCY desires that said Project be implemented and completed as soon as it is practicable in
accordance with the terms of this Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, the AGENCY and the DEVELOPER agree as follows:
1. The property to be developed is described as Assessor's Parcel Nurnber571-170.10 located at the
southeast corner of Bay Boulevard and J Street, Chula Vista, CA., shown on the locator map
attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and by this reference incorporated herein ("Property").
2. The DEVELOPER covenants and agrees by and for itself, it's heirs, executors, administrators and
assigns and all persons claiming under or through them the following:
A. DEVELOPER shall develop the Property with the Project in accordance with the AGENCY
approved development proposal attached hereto as Exhibit "A",
B. DEVELOPER shall obtain all necessary federal/state and local governmental permits and
approvals and abide by all applicable federal, state and local laws, regulations, policies and
approvals in connection with the development of the Project. DEVELOPER further agrees
that this Agreement is contingent upon DEVELOPER securing said permits and approvals.
DEVELOPER shall pay all applicable development impact and processing fees.
~-dl
C. DEVELOPER shall obtain building permits, as required, within one year from the date of this
Agreement and to actually develop the Property with the Project within one year from the
date of issuance of the building permits. In the event DEVELOPER fails to meet these
deadlines, the Agency's approval of DEVELOPER'S development proposals shall be void
and this Agreement shall have no further force or effect.
D. In all deeds granting or conveying an interest in the Property, the following language shall
appear:
'The grantee herejn covenants by and for himse/~ hjs heirs, executors,
administrators and assjgns, and all persons claiming under or through
them, that there shall be no djscrimjnatjon agajnst or segregation o~ any
person or group of persons on account of race, colo~ creed, national origin
or ancestry in the sale, lease, sublease, transfer, use, occupancy, tenure,
or enjoyment of the premises herein conveyed, nor shall the grantee
himself o( any persons claiming under or through him establish or permit
any such practice of discrimination or segregation with reference to the
selection, location, number, use or occupancy of tenants, lessees,
subtenant lessees, or vendees in the premises herejn conveyed. The
foregoing covenants shall run with the land.'
E. In all leases demising an interest in all or any part of the Property, the following language
shall appear:
'The lessee herein covenants by and for himse/~ hjs hejrs, executors,
administrators and assjgns, and all persons cIaimjng under or through him,
and thjs lease is made and accepted upon and subject to the following
conditions:
That there shall be no discrimjnation against or segregation o~ any person
o( group of persons, on account of race, color, creed, national origin, or
ancestry, in the leasing, subleasing, transferring use, occupancy, tenure,
or enjoyment of the premises herejn leased, nor shall the lessee himself or
any persons claiming under or through him, establish or permit any such
practices of discrimination o( segregation with reference to the selection,
location, number or use, or occupancy of tenants, lessees, sublessees,
subtenants, or vendees in the premises herein leased. '
3. The Property shall be developed subject to the conditions imposed by the Design Review Committee
and the AGENCY as described in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this
reference. DEVELOPER acknowledges the validity of and agrees to accept such conditions.
4. DEVELOPER agrees that, if the AGENCY proceeds to form a Special Assessment District for the
construction or maintenance of parking facilities, common areas or other public facilities that benefit
the PROJECT, subject to this AGREEMENT, DEVELOPER hereby waives any right it may have to
protest the formation of such Special Assessment District. Said waiver shall not preclude the
DEVELOPER from protesting the amount of any assessment on the PROPERTY.
5. DEVELOPER shall maintain the premises in FIRST CLASS CONDITION.
A. DUTY TO MAINTAIN FIRST CLASS CONDITION. Throughout the term of this Agreement,
DEVELOPER shall, at DEVELOPER'S sole cost and expense, maintain the Property which
includes all improvements thereon in first class condition and repair, and in accordance with
all applicable laws, permits, licenses and other governmental authorizations, rules,
J - cJd--
..
ordinances, orders, decrees and regulations now or hereafter enacted, issued or promulgated
by federal, state, county, municipal, and other govemmental agencies, bodies and courts
having or claiming jurisdiction and all their respective departments, bureaus, and officials.
If the DEVELOPER fails to maintain the Property in a "first class condition', the
Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista or its agents shall have the right to go on
the Property and perform the necessary maintenance and the cost of said maintenance shall
become a lien against the Property. The Agency shall have the right to enforce this lien
either by foreclosing on the Property or by forwarding the amount to be collected to the Tax
Assessor who shall make it part of the tax bill.
B. DEVELOPER shall promptly and diligently repair, restore, alter, add to, remove, and replace,
as required, the Property and all improvements to maintain or comply as above, orto remedy
all damage to or destruction of all or any part of the improvements. Any repair, restoration,
alteration, addition, removal, maintenance, replacement and other act of compliance under
this paragraph (hereafter collectively referred to as "Restoration") shall be completed by
DEVELOPER whether or not funds are available from insurance proceeds or subtenant
contributions.
C. In order to enforce all above maintenance provisions, the parties agree that the Community
Development Director is empowered to make reasonable determinations as to whether the
Property is in a first class condition. If he determines it is not, he (1) will notify the
DEVELOPER in writing and (2) extend a reasonable time to cure. If a cure or substantial
progress to cure has not been made within that time, the Director is authorized to effectuate
the cure by City forces or otherwise, the cost of which will be promptly reimbursed by the
DEVELOPER.
D. FIRST CLASS CONDITION DEFINED. First class condition and repair, means an efficient
and attractive condition, at least substantially equal in quality to the condition which exists
when the Project has been completed in accordance with all applicable laws and conditions.
6. AGENCY and DEVELOPER agree that the covenants of the DEVELOPER expressed herein shall run
with the land. DEVELOPER shall have the right, without prior approval of AGENCY, to assign its
rights and delegate its duties under this Agreement.
7. AGENCY and DEVELOPER agree that the covenants of the DEVELOPER expressed herein are for
the express benefit of the AGENCY and for all owners of real property within the boundaries of the
BAYFRONT REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA as the same now exists or may be hereafter
amended. AGENCY and DEVELOPER agree that the provisions of this Agreement may be
specifically enforced in any court of competent jurisdiction by the AGENCY on its own behalf or on
behalf of any owner of real property within the boundaries of the BA YFRONT REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT AREA.
8. AGENCY and DEVELOPER agree that this Agreement may be recorded by the AGENCY in the Office
of the County Recorder of San Diego County, Califomia.
9. DEVELOPER shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless AGENCY
and the City of Chula Vista, and their respective Council members, officers, employees, agents and
representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims and costs,
including court costs and reasonable attorneys' fees (collectively, "liabilities") incurred by the AGENCY
arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) AGENCY'S approval of this Agreement, (b) AGENCY'S or City's
approval or issuance of any other permit or action, whether discretionary or non-discretionary, in
connection with the Project contemplated herein, and (c) DEVELOPER'S construction and operation of
the Project permitted hereby.
,,;J C:¿~j
..
10. In the event of any dispute between the parties with respecttothe obligations underthisAGREEMENT
that results in litigation, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover its reasonable attomey's fees
and court costs from the non-prevailing party.
11. Time is of the essence for each and every obligation hereunder.
12. If DEVELOPER fails to fulfill its obligations hereunder after due notice and reasonable opportunity to
cure, DEVELOPER shall be in default hereunder, and in addition to any and all other rights and
remedies AGENCY may have, at law or in equity, the AGENCY shall have the right to terminate its
approval of the Project and this Agreement.
Signature Page Follows
~ -cJ.Ý
- ..
Signature Page
To Owner Participation Agreement with
Community Health Group
IN WITNESS WHEREOF THE PARTIES HAVE ENTERED INTO THIS AGREEMENT EFFECTIVE AS OF THE DATE
FIRST WRITTEN ABOVE.
"AGENCY"
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
By:
Shirley Horton, Chairman
"DEVELOPER"
Community Health Group
By:
Gabriel Arce, President
NOTARY: Please attach acknowledgment card.
APPROVED AS TO FORM BY:
John M. Kaheny, Agency Attorney
ATTEST:
Chris Salomone, Community Development Director
eJ- ~~
-
Exhibit A
Locater Map &
Reduced Copies of Design Plans
Follow
e::J - ~(P
- . ..
\~\I @~"~~~I~:,.,.~,",'.':",',:,~~" ~, ,~~, , I \~~ I'
1 \\ , ~'~~' ~~\ ~----~~o \ \-.1\ ~
~ '" ~""",,"", ~--=",\ D" " \ ,Øl "",,"
I' """"-~~ 0: r-1 . ',¿::::<
I """'-:,,I'kl\\1 ' ",I
I'"" ,\ \:\"------"" ,"',"~,',"-,I'~;,\",',' ,'\,a 0(;,' "~ ~,', ,,',
~ \ ~I ~I ' \J'çB\I'~
I, \ i ~tv-\ ,~-=---- , B\,~ ç::::ç:.
\ ~ \ ,I ~ I r \...---, Br-H Þ,
I II \ , ' 'I I.. s.~ \'" \-.-.----, ì I~ W ,f
\ II I I' ¥ ~ D?"" \ I "" B~ ~ ,,\=
I II I ~ \~~çr) I, '7 J" '--'~~::tJc
\ I I~ J I~~~~,'," "'~,",' , " \"~'-'"o~,A CHCU";;'T~R,STA"S~~,~~,,",,",I, , ,?,,",~,','~,'\,\,
' I 1- ~. ~ ,,-~ I,~ ,..
\ "r-\ \~\ ;J..r---:;:::::" BH ,~
'\ \\\1\ \ ~ ~ ~ ' . ,'~, i \ ~\ ~g~ ,a\n'e
\ '" ' "m>---- ~<rlþ':::-\ ~B:::\'
,\~ '{!, MUELLER i§.' . r,,-C' ~ 1\\'" .'--;'\ " d::)' ~,(
-----\"\ 1\\" \ ~~~IE,.L,=:'I..",~,...".,..~",,~,'" "~m""~,",L--,,,, "",1",-" ~,.-S' IV,""-, V,'" ~,':::î--\"""'~""'~""""I
í I \ \\1 I '" \ -~ \~'-V" ~\=-u~~ ~,----,?c1,~
-' " 'I 1 <JI ,I ~~";'Y -'~',..-':-:'CY-::::"---',-'~'~:-'~"::
\" I." II" II," \, 'ç:gcSJ" ' ~, V4,~, '-, ~";::::' ç::'í','~,Ç6" ~,' ~, ',' 'ÇI--"H'r'::J., Ç\,' "ç:.,
", ' " c::o.---' .--:V" y;::: ----, I--'" ',--,'-- ~ ---' ~ '~ ~, ~
' /'" ,II \ \'~::l-J'"~%,, ~,~ r,::::-\/c---,(:::::::=, /~ .-:--\,::J,--\I..-'---.....-
\ , , 'I , ,.--- ~ / \..-<-,~J -; C 'é','J--' \
1 / ~, I '\~," \ ~,-- W,' 'r"..l---'I,' ç~=::::::::, I',\\"";::"'ç-n,~"", ........,j~,I:~"--y\,,ç;\,ê
~ ,'\ I'" '\'" ~~~- OÇ\ç:::;ç:..:,,-- ~ ----'ç:::;~"
""",,' ...........----, II, \",,\\,.......-----1,,',".,'" \, II"\""""",\..-V'"""~",,,, ~"",'-:::::::==':",",~,'.~",,"':~'--I\?'\,Et='~~",----""~",."",",,"19,,,',~,~"",',""'V"',.....c:'\,----"""',,'~,",,,
"701....------- II ,I I I~;...->--':;:.......\,a,:...----:.,.(Ly!>....\nc...->- -- I' ~,"-"\...-\Y:---
"i' .' ' \ ' é...\,ç::;'Ç::1,:;..--t::::.::::://T-,ç~ \..~_I¿.' ~t::Y,~
\7\ ,I I I' ,j. ,t::::-'c::ç:\~.~\~h ""'" ~" ::--;.~\'cP,.........
< \ :" C., "D, ,,~ «;, ~ ,.-:'!.i-""" \ .. ' <9.~Ê C~Cç.,"
I~\. :';'!"L/~ \ .~\,II,',I , \~~~,,'~,~.'ÐJ "',.'o-\jl.~.,r--------,------,.".,.",,~,-.;~..",.J;,~.-"ß'{-,",~.':""",.I",..,\5ç(Ç~\ I ,n.K,;,.,',,-,------.-----,,- ~,.,.'\.'.Çp,-"I'" æ,..I, .~\ ~,',.~,c-"
17"-. [, \I( ~ ~I' ¿;::: / ~\S;:::::; '\ ¡-j;: ~' I t:::?"
Z [ i \u r '%::::: 6~..---::: . V ..-!---' 1-';::;\
~\ :, II III ' I ---::):::þ,- "'" """"", " ',0--'
,[ )J-,\, ~~'" /'-----,~,
~\~.. \\: -'---<\-ø/í\ '~'~'.~::::;:\, cP~ ~w' ~, ',' ;:---------
, .. ~ ----- \ \ I '. ,\\ d ';:Y:, ~ ,..c-- . I ~ 'ç: - .......... I :í\ I
~ //~.,,---------J\.., \ ~',',í.d,~~,'~,','~,""""---"""".""""",aí,'. ~, ~,'~\\ ~. --=---',.I.'~~~"'.' ,"\
/Î PARK' ------- \ '( , ~ \J;::>::-:::'.......... ~\......- ;\' I \' \---\,..-' -' ,
~ \ ~~~'6\. I~, 1\..-V'.,\§.',-..,,9,,/..','~~,t,..,..:), I.....\~..,'..'. .¿¿.~\
I !Aì~ '~B3 -------'d\~~~ ~ffi~û\\
\ '~"', ~"~':"----.::----:""',,,..~'~"rÞ,,'ç.-.):::)'. ~~\~~\" ,,' . ,o--",-----",..',,?~"I' I (~"'~~,tB.' ,'\."-
i ri ~~\JŸ~, I \:V,~tr:.
., PROJ( !\ ~~çg~, '?\~ ,I \\jj~
; ~ ,! \ 'OJ \B 'r-:
lOCATION \~I \, \"" W¡cB~'.c ~'" ~W3 "'"
/ I " I
\. \ : , .
CHULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR PROJECT COMMUNITY HEAUH GROUP PROJE~TDESCRIPTlON:
C) APPLICANT: OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT
PRaJE~T Southeast corner of "J" Street
ADDRESS: and Bay Boulevard. Request: Proposed pariting lot to provide 46 additional
pariting spaces for the adjacent Community
SCALE; I FILE NUMBER: ! J, Health Group facility.
NORTH No Scale I IS - 00-22 X-cl. 7
h:\home\PlannJng\hecronlocatorslISO022.cdr 02/23/00
. I
en ---...l._--~ ! ,
::¡ '---- ! I
m ----r
" - ,
~ -----~--
! I
¡
!
¡
i
!
. ;¡
,
~@
;, ¡; Pjiii i Pi ¡ ji :i Ii f! r! I if!i(Ji IPjii I ill i~ !i¡ I,:, ,~ Ii!;; !II f
I,.n u!l: I ~ ¡ I ~ § Ii f . .. i¡d ~~: I df ~ i 8 lit ¡¡¡ ~ ~Ig l~ ~ Ii
<I; . i ø E i . I I ~ f ¡;,ø 5iø ~ «,I .. -i -. I 0 ' '¡¡'. t< ~
i Ip : II Ii I,! i ~ i if f! .,~I!I ,~ þ :;;~'. r ~iif ii 5 i
n ,I 'ð'i=¡rlal~ ~'I~.II~' ,sA: ~m ~.llhz f
ad ¡3 .1'lq§I~;i.id~,;~ ~'.~ :~, .
1;-. I ~01 :¡~i~. al~,~
ç)-d-?
EXHIBIT B
Conditions ot Approval
Owner Participation Agreement
Community Health Group
DESIGN REVIEW
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
INSERT NEW CONDITIONS PER DRC
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. Prior to issuance of any sign permjt, a sign program shall be approved by the Design Revjew
Committee.
2. Prior to any use of the project site all conditions of approval shall be completed to the satisfaction
of the Community Development Djrector.
3. Approval of thjs request shall not waive compljance wjth all sectjons of the Munjcipal Code and all
other applicable City Ordinances in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
4. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Committee
prjor to jssuance of any bujldjng or engineerjng permjt.
5. A sjx foot dedicatjon of right of way along Bay Boulevard is required.
6. The Engineering Division will require the applicant to obtain a construction permit to perform any
work in the City's right of way, which may include, but js not limited to: construct curb, gutter and
sidewalk along Bay Boulevard and J Street; construct driveway approaches per Chula Vista
Construction Standards 1, CVCS.1; widen Bay Boulevard to 26 feet curb to centerline for 36 feet
of rjght of way; wjden J Street to 48 feet to centerline for 60 feet right of way; construct pedestrian
ramp per ADA standards at jntersectjon of Bay Boulevard and J Street; and, install street lights as
required by the Traffic Division.
7. Driveway approaches must be eight feet minimum from the point of curb return and per Chula
Vjsta standards.
8. It may be determjned at the building permit stage (electrical permit for lighting) that a grading
permit js required, as no jnformatjon regarding proposed grading has been submitted.
9. Permits are required for all signage and exterior lighting.
10. Plans and constructjon must comply wjth the 1996 National Electrjcal Code, or as it may be
updated or amended prjor to jssuance of permjt.
H :\HOME\COM M DEVlEstes\commhealth parkingopa. doc
C;;:-c<..9
- ..
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM NO.: 3
MEETING DATE: 09/12/00
ITEM TITLE: RESOLUTION APPROVING A $10,000 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR DOWNTOWN BUSINESS ASSOCIATION
PROMOTIONS AND ADVERTISING FROM UNAPPROPRIATED TAX
INCREMENT REVENUE FROM THE BAYFRONT/TOWN CENTRE I
PROJECT
SUBMITTED BY: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR U::} ~ (3
REVIEWED BY: EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ÚJ::~
K
4/STHS VOTE: YESŒ]NOD
BACKGROUND
On March 21, 2000 the City Council approved an increase of $5,000 for promotional activities
and $5,000 for advertising for the Downtown Business Association's annual budget allocation for
inclusion in the 2000-2001 Redevelopment Agency Budget for the Town Centre IIBayfrant Project
Area (Org Key 61110, Object 6521.) The change was inadvertently omitted from the final
approved budget as adopted. This action will rectify this and amend the budget accordingly.
RECOMMENDATION
Amend the Redevelopment Agency 2000-2001 budget to increase the Downtown Business
Association's annual allocation for promotional activities from $10,000 to $15,000 and
advertising from $10,000 to $15,000 from unappropriated tax increment revenue from the
Bayfront / Town Centre I project.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION
Not applicable.
DISCUSSION
This action will correct a budget oversight in the adopted 2000-2001 Redevelopment Agency
budget for activities conducted by the Downtown Business Association (DBA.) These activities
include additional promotional events and advertising by the DBA as part of the overall
revitalization efforts now underway in the Third Avenue district. During the past two years, special
events in downtown Chula Vista have been increasingly successful. The last Cinco de Mayo event
brought approximately 50,000 attendees downtown and the August Lemon Festival, with 30,000
--3 - /
- -
PAGE 2, ITEM NO.:
MEETING DATE: 09/12/00
attendees, was extremely successful. Recognizing the positive impact of these and other events
and activities conducted by the DBA, Council authorized additional funding for promotional
events and advertising to be included in the current year Agency budget. This item is therefore a
clean-up action to bring the adopted budget into compliance with Council's direction to include
the additional funding in the current year Agency budget appropriations.
FISCAL IMPACT
This item corrects an oversight in the 2000-2001 adapted budget. The additional $10,000
appropriation in the Town Centre IIBayfront (Org Key 61110) Promotional Expense category
(Object 6521) is available from unappropriated tax increment funds generated within the
Bayfront/T own Centre I redevelopment project area.
AnACHMENTS
H:\HOME\COMMDEV\STAFF.REP\09-12-00\DBA 2000 Amendment.doc
~-J -d-
- ..
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY
OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING A $10,000 REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR DOWNTOWN BUSINESS
ASSOCIATION PROMOTIONS AND ADVERTISING FROM
UNAPPROPRIATED TAX INCREMENT REVENUE FROM THE
BAYFRONTITOWN CENTRE I PROJECT
WHEREAS, the Downtown Business Association is responsible for promotional and
advertising activities associated with the Third Avenue business district in the Town Centre I
Redevelopment Project Area; and
WHEREAS, the Agency Board has recognized the success of such activities in helping
revitalize the Third Avenue business district, including such events as Cinco de Mayo, the Lemon
Festival, Starlight Yule Parade, weekly Farmer's Market and Blast from the Past Car Shows; and
WHEREAS, the Agency Board on March 21, 2000 requested that an additional $5,000 for
promotional activities and $5,000 for advertising be included in the 2000-2001 Agency Budget for the
Downtown Business Association; and
WHEREAS, this action approving a budget amendment will correct an oversight in the
preparation of the 2000-2001 Agency Budget by amending the budget to reflect Agency Board
direction;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula
Vista does hereby amend the 2000-2001 Redevelopment Agency Budget to include an additional
$5,000 for promotional activities and $5,000 for advertising for the Downtown Business Association
(Org Key 61110, Object Account 6521).
PRESENTED BY APPROVED AS TO FORM BY
~ ~
Chris Salomone
Director of Community Development
H: \H OM E\C 0 M M D EVIR E SOS\DBApromotion sbudgetamend me nt. doc
3-3
- ..
{~
Qllv
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA STATEMENT
4
ITEM NO.: 'j ~ '2!1
MEETING DATE:
ITEM TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REQUEST TO AMEND THE OTAY
VALLEY ROAD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA IMPLEMENTATION
PLAN AND DESIGN MANUAL ADDENDUM TO LIST A CONCRETE
BATCH PLANT AS A USE ALLOWED BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT
RESOLUTION DENYING THE REQUEST FOR AN AMENDMENT TO
THE OTAY VALLEY ROAD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AND DESIGN MANUAL ADDENDUM TO
LIST A CONCRETE BATCH PLANT AS A USE ALLOWED BY SPECIAL
USE PERMIT
SUBMITTED BY: COMMUNITY DEVELOP~ENT DIRECTOR L\1-..{ò., c...s
REVIEWED BY: EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR IOr.D~
f\
4/5THS VOTE: YESDNO0
BACKGROUND
The applicant, Superiar Ready Mix Concrete, requested to submit an application for a Special
Use Permit for a concrete batch plant on property located at 1855 Maxwell Raad within the Otay
Valley Road Redevelopment Project Area. The Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Project Area
Implementation Plan and Design Manual Addendum governs the land use in the Otay Valley
Road Project Area, and it does not allow concrete batch plants conditionally or by right.
Therefore, an application for that use could not be accepted. Staff provided this information to
the applicant who desired to pursue the proposed use through application for an amendment to
the Otay Valley Road Implementation Plan.
The Planning and Environmental Manager of the Community Development Department has
prepared an Initial Study for the proposed amendment to the Implementation Plan. Typical impacts
such as noise and traffic were not reviewed as this is merely an application for the amendment, not
for the actual batch plant project. It was determined that the proposed amendment will not hove a
significant effect on the environment. A Negative Declaration was prepared in accordance with the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act.
Allowing a heavy industrial use in the area would be a set back and detrimental to the Agency's
efforts. Staff is recommending that the requested amendment be denied as it is not consistent with
the goals of the Redevelopment Agency.
/- (
- -
PAGE 2, ITEM NO.: /
MEETING DATE: 07/25/00
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt attached Resolution denying the proposed amendment to the Otay Valley Road
Redevelopment Project Area Implementation Plan and Design Manual Addendum; and take no
action on the negative declaration.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION
A Public Heoring before the Planning Commission was initiated on May 17, 2000 at which staff
recommended denial of the application. At that public hearing speakers representing residents,
businesses, and a representative from the adjacent land fill spoke against the lond use change. The
applicont presented informotion that suggested that a concrete botch plant could be designed and
operated in such a manner as to meet the requirements of the goals and objectives of the
Redevelopment Plan. Their presentation included the provision of underground vaults for the sand
and gravel, as well as tilt up concrete walls to give the appearance of an industrial park. They stated
thot air quality associated with the use would not be of a nuisance level. The Public Hearing was
continued to 6/14/00 to allow staff the opportunity to present additional information regarding the
economic development of the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Area, as well as, a resolution
approving the language change to the implementation plan.
At the public hearing an June 14, 2000, staff again recommended denial. The applicant spoke
to the benefits of the concrete batch plant. The applicant had indicated at the May 17, 2000
meeting that they would be willing to consider a sunset date on their operation. When asked
how much time they would need to justify the improvements, they responded 15-20 years. The
Planning Commission voted (3-2-2-0) to adopt the Negative Declaration and approve Resolution
PCM-00-23 amending the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Project Area Implementation Plan
and Design Manual Addendum to list a concrete batch plant as a use allowed by Special Use
Permit. The motion failed. The minutes from both meetings are attached. In addition, a letter
from Doug Fuller thot was submitted to the Planning Commission on June 14, 2000 is attached.
DISCUSSION
The applicant, Superior Ready Mix, has requested an amendment to the Otay Valley Road
Implementation Plan, in order to process a Special Use Permit for a concrete batch plant. To allow
this use, and support the amendment to the Implementation Plan, it would be necessary to find
conformance with the goals and objectives of the Redevelopment Plan and the Implementation Plan.
Staff does not believe thot the requested amendment is consistent with the goals of the Otay Valley
Road Redevelopment Plan. The following review sets forth the conflict between the requested
amendment and the existing goals of the redevelopment area.
The establishment of lond uses within the Project Area is governed by the following provision
within the Otoy Valley Road Redevelopment Project Area Implementation Plan/Design Manual
Addendum:
(-.)...
- .-
PAGE 3, ITEM NO.: I
MEETING DATE: 07/25/00
~ All land uses prahibited by the I-L or I regulations shall be prohibited in the Project
Area. The project site is zoned I-Po
~ The I-L regulations (Section 19.44.050 A.1. of the Chula Vista Municipal Code) list as
prohibited uses or processes manufacturing uses and processes involving the primary
production of products from raw materials, including the following materials and
uses: Asphalt, cement, charcoal and fuel briquettes. A concrete batch plant processes
cement with sand and gravel to make concrete.
This limitation on industrial uses, as opposed to limited industrial uses, is the essence of this
Redevelopment Area's purpose. The goal is to produce industrial parks, and to phase out heovy
industrial uses. While the applicant is suggesting designing a hybrid facility that, except for the
delivery of raw product and transit by concrete trucks, would appear on the surface to be another
industrial park, it is still a purely industrial use, and as such is presently prohibited due to its
intensity and typical nature,
The Redevelopment Plan adopted in 1983 identified the following blighting conditions in the
Project Area that this property exhibits today:
~ Undeveloped, unproductive and underdeveloped properties throughout the
Area.
A concrete batch plant ot this location would be a continuation of the underdevelopment
of this property when viewed in the larger framework of the Redevelopment and
Implementation Plan which envisions an industrial park like development.
~ The lack of proper utilization of many properties within the Project Area
boundaries resulting in development constraints on a number of these
properties, thus producing a stagnant and unproductive condition of land which
is otherwise potentially useful and valuable.
A concrete batch plant may have a negative economic effect on the surrounding
properties by perpetuating heavy industrial in conflict with and hamper the development
of light industrial and research and industrial office parks.
The following objectives of the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Project Area Five Year
Implementation Plan for Years 2000-2004 are applicable to the subject property:
~ The elimination of existing blighted conditions, be they properties or structures,
and the prevention of recurring blight in and about the Project Area.
As noted previously, the concrete batch plant is viewed as an underdevelopment of this
site.
~ The development of property within a coordinated land use paffern of
commercial, industrial, recreational, and public facilities In the Project Area
consistent with the goals, policies, objectives, standards, guidelines and
1-.3
- -
PAGE 4, ITEM NO.: (
MEETING DATE: 07/25/00
requirements as set forth in the City's and County's adopted General Plan and
Zoning Ordinance.
The batch plant is not in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance.
~ Beautification activities to eliminate all forms of blight including, but not limited
to, visual blight, in order to encourage community identity.
It is the intent of the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment plan and ils Implementation Plan and
Design Manual Addendum to guide and promote the development of well-designed, well-
ordered, and economically sound industrial parks and land uses. The land uses envisioned
by the plan include light manufacturing facilities, warehouses, distribution centers, research
institutions, and product-development plants. As a general rule, the said plans and
addendum contemplate and encourage the establishment of indoor or enclosed operations.
A concrete batch plant would not meet this criteria.
~ The achievement of a physical environment reflecting a high level of concern of
architectural and urban design principles deemed important by the community,
A concrete batch plant generally exhibits a simple utilitarian design that does not concern
itself with architecture or urban design.
The Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Project Area was formed in December 1983 in order to
eliminate conditions of blight which were impacting industrial development in the area. In 1983 this
area represented the largest resource of under-developed urbanized property in the City which could
be used for industrial development, thereby improving the City's employment and economic base.
The Redevelopment Agency has invested millions of dollars in the Otay Valley Road Area to
improve the roadways and to facilitate new business development, including Gold Coast
Engineering and the Auto Park. The area is just now beginning to experience a resurgence in
development activity after the recession. The amphitheater and water park opened in the late
1990's and are now thriving. Main Street is now a regional corridor as well as a primary
east/west arterial that will serve the eastern territories. The overall character of the area is taking
on an industrial office and commercial charecter. All of the heavy industrial uses are being
phased out. The existing auto wreckers have sunset clauses in their special use permits and will
be phased out. There are presently 90 vacant acres along Main Street (formerly Otay Valley
Road). Staff will be precessing plans for commercial and industrial park projects on over 60
acres this year. The goals of the redevelopment area are now being realized.
CONCLUSION
The above objectives were specifically developed to alleviate conditions of physical and economic
blight which impede development in the project area. The goal established for the preject area
in the Redevelopment Plan specifically references the use of the redevelopment process to
eliminate and mitigate all aspects of blight. The objectives specifically address blighting
conditions impeding the development of properties in the project area including the need to
eliminate visual blight due to incompatible uses, the proper utilization of properties in this project
area, and conformonce with existing zoning.
(- 1-
- ..
PAGE 5, ITEM NO.: I
MEETING DATE: 07/25/00
Staff has concluded that the proposed amendment is inconsistent with the Goals and Objectives
of the Redevelopment and Implementation Plan. Thus, it is recommended that the
Redevelopment Agency adopt a resolution recommending to the Redevelopment Agency of the
City of Chula Vista deny the proposed amendment based on the findings contained in the
attached Draft Redevelopment Agency Resolution.
AnACHMENTS
1. Planning Commission Minutes - May 17, 2000
2. Planning Commission Minutes - June 14, 2000
3. Letter from Doug Fuller dated June 14, 2000
/-:;-
- -
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY
OF CHULA VISTA DENYING THE REQUEST FOR AN
AMENDMENT TO THE OTAY VALLEY ROAD PROJECT AREA
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN I DESIGN MANUAL ADDENDUM TO
LIST A CONCRETE BATCH PLANT AS A USE ALLOWED BY A
SPECIAL USE PERMIT
WHEREAS, the parcel which is the subject matter of this resolution is represented in Exhibit
A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and for the purpose of general
description is the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Project Area ("Project Site"); and
WHEREAS, on November 16,1999 a duly verified application for an amendment to the Otay
Valley Road Project Area Implementation Plan I Design Manual Addendum (PCM-00-23) was filed
with the City of Chula Vista Community Development Department by Superior Ready Mix Concrete
(Applicant); and
WHEREAS, applicant requests permission to construct a concrete batch plant which
presently is not allowed by the existing Implementation Plan I Design Manual Addendum thereby
necessitating a request for amendment to said Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider said
application for an amendment to said Plan on May 17, 2000, and recommended that the Public
Hearing be continued to June 14, 2000 to allow staff the opportunity to present additional information
regarding the economic development of the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Area. On June 14,
after considering all evidence and testimony presented recommended by a vote of 3-2-2-0 that the
Redevelopment Agency deny the Implementation Plan Amendment. This motion did not carry as 4
votes are required for a majority; and
WHEREAS, the Project was presented to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula
Vista on July 25, 2000 to receive the recommendation of the Planning Commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista
does hereby deny the Implementation Plan Amendment based on the following findings:
PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD
The proceedings and all evidence on the Project introduced before the Planning Commission at their
public hearings on this project held on May 17, 2000 and June 14, 2000, and the minutes and
resolution resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Manager prepared an Initial Study, and
determined that the proposed amendment will not have a significant effect on the environment. A
Negative Declaration was prepared; and,
/- C:,
- '-
CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA
WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency finds that the Negative Declaration has been
prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, and the
Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista.
1. A concrete batch plant would be a continuation of the underdevelopment of this property when
viewed in the larger framework of the goals and objectives of the Redevelopment and
Implementation Plans which envision an industrial park development.
2. A concrete batch plant may have a negative economic effect on the surrounding properties by
sending the message that the comprehensive vision of the Redevelopment Plan is still
premature.
3. The concrete batch plant is a prohibited use per the Zoning Ordinance.
4. A concrete batch plant generally exhibits a simple utilitarian design that does not concern itself
with architecture or urban design.
5. It is the intent of the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment plan, and its Implementation Plan and
Design Manual Addendum to guide and promote the development of well-designed, well-
ordered, and economically sound industrial parks and land uses. The land uses envisioned by
the plan include light manufacturing facilities, warehouses, distribution centers, research
institutions, and product-development plants. As a general rule, the said plans and addendum
contemplate and encourage the establishment of indoor or enclosed operations. A concrete
batch plant would not meet this criteria.
PRESENTED BY APPROVED AS TO FORM BY
~y tJ~ I-I~ f-1lA.
Chris Salomone
Director of Community Development Agency Attorney
H:\HOMEICOMMDEVlRESOSIConcrete Batch res.doc
1- ?
- -
ATTACHMENT 1
MINUTES OF THE
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
Council Conference Room
6:00 p,m. City Hall
Wednesday, May 17, 2000 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista
ROlL CAW MOTIONS TO EXCUSE:
Present: Chair Willett, Commissioners Castaneda, Hall, Thomas,
Cortes, O'Neill
Absent: Commissioner Ray
Staff Present: Jim Sandoval, Assistant Director of Planning and Building
Brian Hunter, Planning and Environmental Manager
Elizabeth Hull, Deputy City Attorney
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCElSILENT PRAYER
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Read into the record by Chair Willett
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
MSC (Hall/Castaneda) (6-1-0-0) to approve minutes of April 12, 2000 as submitted.
Motion carried unanimously.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: No public input.
1. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of the following application
filedby the Superior Ready Mix Concrete for 1855 Maxwell Road.
Amendment to the Otay Valley Road
Redevelopment Project Area Implementation Plan and Design
Manual Addendum to list a concrete batch plant as an allowed use.
Commissions Castaneda and Thomas stated for the record that they both spoke separately
to Arne Veldkamp (applicant) p.rior to tonight's meeting at the request of the applicant.
Background: Brian Hunter, Planning and Environmental Manager, reported that the
applicant submitted an application for a Special Use Permit for a concrete batch plant at
1855 Maxwell Road, located within the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Project Area.
The existing ordinance governing the site does not allow this type of use either
conditionally or by right, and since a site-specific land use amendment is not feasible, the
applicant decided to pursue the proposed use through an application for an amendment to
the Implementation Plan, enabling a concrete batch plant to be an allowed use in this area.
1- ?
-
Planning Commission Minutes -2- May lï, 2000
The proposed project site is zoned loP (Industrial Precise Plan) and normally one would
think that a concrete batch plant would be an allowed use, however it is in direct conflict
with the specific objectives and purpose of the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Project
Area.
The Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Project Area was formed in December 1983 in order
to eliminate conditions of blight, which were impacting industrial development in the area.
The Plan identified the following blighting conditions in the Project Area that this property
exhibits today:
. Undeveloped unproductive and underdeveloped properties throul'!hout the Area.
A concrete batch plant would be a continuation of the underdevelopment of this
property, which the Plan envisions as an industrial park-like development.
. The lack of proper utilization of many properties within the Proiect Area boundaries
resultinl'! in development constraints on a number of these properties. thus
producinl'! a stal'!nant and unproductjve condition of land. which is otherwise
potentiallv useful and valuable
A concrete batch plant may have a negative economic effect on surrounding
properties by sending the message that the vision of the Redevelopment Plan is still
premature.
The objectives of the OVRRP Area Five Year Implementation Plan for the year 2000-2004
applicable to the subject property are as follows:
. The eliminatjon of existinl'! bljl'!hted conditions. be they properties or structures and
the prevention of recurrinl'! blil'!ht in and about the Proiect Area.
The concrete batch plant is viewed as an underdevelopment of this site.
. The development of property ....in the Proiect Area consistent with I'!oals.
...I'!uidelines and reQuirements as set forth in the Citv's adopted General Plan and
Zoninl'! Ordinance
The batch plant is not in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance.
. Beautification activities to eliminate all forms of blil'!ht include but not limited to.
visual blil'!ht. in order to encoural'!e community identify
The land uses envisioned by the Plan include light manufacturing facilities,
warehouses, distribution centers, research institutions, and produce-development
plants. A concrete batch plant would not meet this criteria.
To allow a concrete batch plant in this area would be contradictory to the objectives and
goals of the Redevelopment Plan.
Staff Recommendation: That the Planning Commission adopt the Resolution
recommending that the Redevelopment Agency adopt the Negative Declaration and deny
the project in accordance with the Redevelopment Agency Resolution based on the findings
of fact contained therein.
/- c¡
- .-
Planning Commission Minutes -3- May 17, 2000
Public Hearing Opened 6:30
Arne Veldkamp, applicant (Superior Ready Mix Concrete) gave a brief description of how
concrete ready-mix is processed and a presentation on the company, stating it is a family-
owned business in operation in San Diego for approximately 40 years and is one of 3 or 4
ready-mix concrete companies in San Diego County.
The company services and delivers a lot of concrete in City of Chula Vista, which comes
from the plant located on Mission Gorge Rd. in the City of San Diego. The company is
present throughout the County, but does not have a plant in Chula Vista.
This site is split in two levels with an approximate 35 foot slope, which is ideally suited for
this type of plant because the materials would be on the higher pad and transported on a
conveyor belt to the plant located on the lower pad. Any other type of industry or building
would require substantial grading.
Mr. Veldkamp reaffirmed his belief that this is an appropriate use for the site because the
ready-mix concrete batch plants is not considered a heavy industrial use, in fact, within the
City of Chula Vista they are allowed by right in the Industrial Zone and do not require a
Conditional Use Permit.
There exists a misconception, a "guilt by association", that ready-mix concrete batch plants
are generators of dust and air pollution because a lot of them are situated in rock quarries.
To the contrary, a ready-mix concrete batch plant is quite dusk-free, which is supported in
the findings of an analysis conducted by an engineering firm contracted by the applicant in
which it compared air and dust emissions from an asphalt and concrete plant to a batch
plant. Mr. Veldkamp stated that the plant utilizes state-of-the-art equipment used in this
industry, which virtually eliminates any dust or air pollution.
This plant is expected to generate approximately $10 million gross sales per year, from
which the City of Chula Vista would receive tax revenues as well as property tax revenues.
Presently, all of the concrete that is delivered to the City comes from the batch plants
located outside of Chula Vista, and most likely from plants located in the City of San Diego,
therefore, the tax revenue goes back to San Diego.
Dick Chase, Pacific Waste Services, 881 Energy Way, Chula Vista, stated there is a steep
grade going uphill on Maxwell Road. There are daily over 200 25-ton refuse trucks on this
road and with the City Corp Yard and the school district going in, his objection to the
project is solely related to the cumulative traffic impacts on the road and perceived danger
with heavy-loaded trucks egressing this site on an uphill grade.
Dave Shibley, 1923 Bedford Place, Escondida, representing Arie de long, owner of the
property stated this site is ideal for the batch plant because of the split-level 35 foot grade
on the property. He further stated that he has worked with Lowell Billings of the school
district and reaffirmed their interest in the northerly acres for sometime in the future.
Mr. Shibley stated that Mr. Veldkamp, Dr. Billings and himself met to discuss the feasibility
1- (0
- -
Planning Commission Minutes -4- May 17, 2000
of sharing a common entrance where the two properties intersect on the 18 acre site, to
avoid exiting the site on an uphill grade, which was a well-received idea.
Mr. Shibley disputed staff's comments regarding this project creating a blighting condition,
because in that case, the school district's bus fleet would equally, if not more, would be
considered a blighting condition.
Public Hearing Closed 7:10.
Commission Discussion:
Commissioner Hall inquired if there were any prospective new businesses or any existing
businesses in that area that are looking to expand who have expressed an interest in this
site.
Additionally, Cmr. Hall asked if Mr. Hunter could give a brief update on what the City
envisions and what is presently in the works for this Redevelopment area.
Mr. Hunter responded that the school district has expressed an interest in this site, as well
as Gold Coast Engineer is looking to expand their existing business in that area.
In terms of present and short-term development in the area; the Auto Park expansion is an
on-going endeavor; another site has been purchased and is actively being marketed, which
the City is working at locating some businesses that are being displaced by the ball park
expansion in the City of San Diego. As previously mentioned, the school district has
expressed an interest in this area; CD has received an application for an industrial building.
Some long-range plans are to continue industrial parks-type development in this area.
Commissioner Castaneda inquired how many trucks and trips would be generated.
Mr. Veldkamp responded that they would anticipate having approximately 20 trucks
stationed on site, and each would make 3 to 4 daily delivery trips. Additionally there
would be approximately 40 to 43 daily truck trips bringing material in.
Chair Willett asked for clarification on the term "allowed by right" in the IL Zone.
Brian Hunter stated that this an "allowed by right" use in the Industrial Zone, not in the IL
Zone, which is the zoning of this site.
Commissioner O'Neill clarified that the action that the Commission is con~idering at this
point, is strictly to amend the OVRRP Area Implementation Plan, which then enables the
'applicant to proceed with submitting an application for a Conditional Use Permit that will
address in detail issues that have been brought up tonight.
/- II
- -
Planning Commission Minutes -5- May 17,2000
Commissioner O'Neill stated that he believes this is an appropriate use for this area and
disagrees with staff's comments regarding the creation or perpetuity of existing blighting
conditions in the area in light of the existing landfill and potentially the school district
moving their bus yard to that area, therefore, he supports the project for the following
reasons:
. Presently Nelson Sloan is quarrying and running trucks of aggregate down Main
Street to their site on 4"' and Main Street and that's in the middle of town.
. Chula Vista needs another batch plant and certainly would benefit from the tax
revenues.
. The dust issues are practically non-existing as supported by the engineer's air
emissions analysis.
Elizabeth Hull clarified that the issue before the Commission tonight and the focus of the
discussion should be toward the benefits or disadvantages to the area in allowing batch
plants in general. To approve amending the Plan, the Commission is charged with making
certain findings that this would be of a benefit to the Redevelopment Area. Since staff has
not presented a resolution to that effect, if that were to be the Commission's motion, this
item would need to be continued to allow staff time to draft the necessary documents
containing those finding.
MSC (O'Neillrrhomas) (6-Q-1..{) to continue this item the Planning Commission meeting of
June 14'h to allow staff time to prepare and submit the necessary positive findings of fact
for this use within the Redevelopment Area as well as an overall presentation on the
overall plan for this Redevelopment Area. Motion carried.
Public Hearing Re-opened to allow one more speaker from the public who had previously
been overlooked.
Hector Tamayo, 505 Tamarack Strèet, Chula Vista, stated he represented concerned
neighbors of the area and they are concerned with additional traffic, noise, and air pollution
impacts that this project would create. Additionally, Mr. Tamayo indicated that this use, in
his opinion, is not compatible with the envisioned goals and the OVRRP Area Plan because
there are other uses, i.e. office buildings with light manufacturing, assembling, research
facilities that would be better suited in a Light Industrial Zone, therefore he urged the
Commission vote against the project.
Public Hearing Closed,
/- (d-
- ..
ATTACHMENT 2
MINUTES OF THE
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
Council Chambers
6:00 p.m. Public Services Building
Wednesday, June 14, 2000 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista
ROll CAW MOTIONS TO EXCUSE:
Present: Chair Willett, Commissioners Castaneda, Thomas, Cortes,
O'Neill
Absent: Commissioners Ray and Hall
Staff Present: Jim Sandoval, Assistant Diredor of Planning and Building
Kim Vander Bie, Associate Planner
Caroline Lewis, Development Services Technician
Brian Hunter, Planning and Environmental Manager
Debra DePratti, Principal Community Development Specialist
Michael Meacham, Conservation Coordinator
Elizabeth Hull, Deputy City Attorney
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/SILENT PRAYER
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Read into the record by Chair Willett
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: No public input.
1. Appointment of new Planning Commission Chair and Vice Chair for FY 00-01.
Bob Thomas was appointed as Chair of the Planning Commission for FY 00-01, and Kevin
O'Neill was-appointed Vice Chair.
2. PUBLIC HEARING: Amendment to the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Project Area
Implementation Plan and Design Manual Addendum to list a
concrete batch plant as an allowed use.
Background: Brian Hunter, Planning and Environmental Manager, Community Development
Department reported that this item was continued by the Planning Commission at the May
17, 2000 meeting to allow staff the opportunity to present additional information regarding
the economic development of the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Area, as well as a
resolution approving the language change to the implementation plan.
Staff's initial recommendation that the Planning Commission deny the amendment remains
the same and the previous resolution refleding that recommendation is included should the
Commission agree with staff's position.
1-13
- -
Planning Commission Minutes - 2 - June 14, 2000
At the May 17'h public hearing opposition was voiced from two adjacent businesses and a
speaker who stated he represented a group of residents. The applicant presented information
that suggested that a concrete batch plant could be designed and operated in such a manner
as to meet the goals and objectives of the Redevelopment Plan.
Debra DePratti, Project Manager for Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Area presented an
overview of the goals of the Plan as well as activities that have occurred since that time. Ms.
DePratti stated that the vision of the Plan, which was adopted in 1983, was to implement a
program of development that would change the nature of that area, from heavy industrial uses
to light industrial uses such as warehousing, industrial office, light manufacturing and the like.
The General Plan designation for this area was all Industrial and the Implementation Plan
rezoned and overlayed a Light Industrial Zone for this area which prohibited any uses that
are prohibited in the Il and I Zones.
Michael Meacham, Conservation Coordinator commented on the City's investment on the
property across the street, which will house the Public Works Corp Yard. Additionally, the
site will house a Compressed Natural Gas and Hydrogen Fuel Cell fleet services building,
which is very sensitive to dust.
In an effort to encourage consumer purchase of alternative fuel vehicles, a public CNG
fueling station will be located on Maxwell Road.
Mr. Meacham further stated that when the City first contemplated this move, the landfill had
an estimated 8-year life on its current permit. The County of San Diego has approved
extending the life of the permit to 28 years, therefore, any business that could exacerbate
what is considered an existing problem in maintaining a clean roadway would be counter-
productive.
Commission Discussion:
Commissioner O'Neill stated that his perspective on this matter encompassed a broad view
and a realistic projection on the longevity of some of these uses (i.e. landfill, auto-wreckers),
which are driven by supply and demand. He also expressed disagreement with staff's
position on the appropriateness of a concrete batch plant use in this area in light of the
existing uses and the future location of the Public Works Corp Yard, CNG fueling facility and
school district bus yard.
Cmr. O'Neill also inquired about the future of the auto recycling/wrecking businesses in that
area and if such a use is permitted anywhere else in the City.
Ms. DePratti stated that she appreciated Commissioner O'Neill's comments on a number of
issues, however, they are site-specific, and the issue at hand is a proposal to amend the Plan
for that area, which is general in nature -and not site-specific. The Commission is charged
with determining if amending the Plan is consistent with the goals of the Redevelopment
Plan.
Ms. DePratti further stated that there were existing auto wreckers on the property that was at
/-('-/-
- -
Planning Commission Minutes -3 - June 14, 2000
one time within the County of San Diego's jurisdiction and subsequently was annexed into
the City of Chula Vista. Those uses were "grandfathered" in and the businesses were
requested to apply, through the Redevelopment Agency, for a Conditional Use Permit, all of
which have "sunset clauses" that will sunset between the years of 2004 and 2006. These
permits will only be renewed upon request by the business and on a case-by-case basis, with
no obligation from the City to renew them.
Ms. De Pratti further stated that presently there is no zoning within the City of Chula Vista that
would allow the establishment of a new auto-wrecking business.
Commissioner Cortes stated that as former Chair of the Otay Valley Rd. Projed Area
Committee, the Committee was charged with implementing the goals envisioned for that
redevelopment area by encouraging more positive investments in that area, therefore, he is
committed that upholding the integrity of the Implementation Plan.
Commissioner Castaneda stated that recently the Commission reviewed a proposal for a
commercial site that was planned a number of years ago and was envisioned to be a
pedestrian-oriented village-type commercial site. Ultimately, what was revealed is that there
is no market demand for that type of concept and as difficult as it was, a decision had to be
made based on realistic market demands and the concept plan was modified.
Similarly, the Implementation Plan that is currently driving the allowed uses for this
redevelopment area, was developed in 1983 and in his opinion, it is totally feasible that the
Plan may need to be amended at this time (17 years later), which as previously stated, is what
the Commission will be voting on, to recommend or not, that the Plan be amended.
Commissioner Castaneda further stated that it is unconscionable to him that a concrete batch
plant would not be an allowed use along side a landfill, auto-wrecker, and future heavy
institutional uses as the City's Public Works Corp Yard, and school district's bus yard.
Furthermore, the only other site that is zoned to allow a batch plant is on Bayfront, which is
inherently ecologically sensitive, irrespective of it requiring approval from the Port District.
The City of Chula Vista is creating a tremendous demand for concrete with every Master
Planned Community that is being built and it is only fair and equitable that a concrete batch
plant be located within the City, which would benefit from tax revenues, and not have to be
transported from another jurisdiction.
Public Hearing Opened 7:25,
Dave Shibley, 1923 Bedford PI., Escondido, CA, representing Arie de Jong, owner of the
property, stated that at the last Planning Commission meeting when this item was first
considered, as well as tonight, a lot of the discussion centered around site specific concerns,
although legitimate, deviate from the proposal at hand, to amend the Implementation Plan.
The amendment would allow the applicant to move forward and submit an application for a
Special Use Permit, at which time all site-specific questions and concerns would be
addressed.
(-IS""
- -
Planning Commission Minutes - 4 - June 14, 2000
Arnold Veldkamp, Superior Ready-Mix stated he does not consider a batch plant a heavy
industrial use considering that in the City of Chula Vista a batch plant is allowed by right in
the industrial zone, and in the County of San Diego is allowed by right in two manufacturing
zones and under three commercial zones.
As stated at the last meeting, there exists a bias against batch plants, because there is an
existing batch plant in Chula Vista where rock crushing and processing is taking place, and is
therefore generating much more dust pollution. The Superior Ready-Mix batch plant facility
would be paved and watered-down every day.
Public Hearing closed 7:35.
MSC (Castaneda/O'neill) (3-2-2-0) that the Planning Commission adopt the Negative
Declaration and approve Resolution PCM-00-23 amending the Otay Valley Road
Redevelopment Project Area Implementation Plan and Design Manual Addendum to list a
concrete batch plant as a use allowed by Special Use Permit. Motion failed.
(- (Co
- -
..Jun-14-00 04:52P P.O2
ATTACHMENT 3
III IBm!
Fuller Ford
560 AUTO PAR", OR'YE . C:""ULA"'STA,C:A91911 . (619' 656-2500
"SQQ'8~.-3939
To; Chula Vista Planning Commission
Re; Considemtion of application filed by Superior Ready Mix Concrete - Resolution PCM-OO-23
Redevelopment Plan Amendment
I am writing to inform you of my strong opposition 10 the application of Superior Ready Mix
Concrete for a Redevelopment Plan Amcndment within the Otay Valley Redcvelopment area. The
Redeve!opment District was created speeifiea1Jy to address the blight and underdeveloped nature of
this area. The approval of this application would be a major step backwards in view of the signilieant
progTess that has heen made over the past few years, in accordance with goals and objectives of the
Redevclopment District.
The development of the AUlo Park, Coors Amphhheater, Knoll\ Soak City, the widening of
(then) Gtay ValJey Road and most recently the name change to Main Street / Allto Park Drive, all
indicate the ongoing success. of the redevelopment district and the fùture trend for this area, A cement
processing plant, which needs a special amendment to operate, is elcar]y not compatible with the goili
that the Citv ofChula Vista has established. From my persona! SI!II1dpoint, r have battled for 15 years
(0 help improve this area in accordance with the ~1ated ohjectives of the City Redevelopment Agency.
The approval of this application by the City of Chula Vista would Constitute a very real betrayal of
these objectives, commitmcnts and significant investment by the same city, which initiated this
process.
T hope (hat you wiJI reeogni:æ that this proposal is not in the best inlere~1 of the Redevelopment
D~triel or the City of Chu]a Vista. T trust that you wi]] accept the recommendation of b1aff and deny
this proposal.
S¡~rel,. ~
~ '"no,
President
t't /!7~ f!7~ /04 /FO'tdJ.IJ
1- 17
- -
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM NO.. .5
MEETING DATE: 09/12/00
ITEM TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING: TO CONSIDER GRANTING A SPECIAL USE
PERMIT TO ALLOW A PEAK LOAD POWER PLANT ON THE
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3497 MAIN STREET WITHIN THE
SOUTHWEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
SUBMITTED BY: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR L¥~ (.,S
REVIEWED BY: EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
4/STHS VOTE: YES D NO ~
Staff recommends that the public hearing be continued to September 26, 2000
- '-
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM NO.: ~
MEETING DATE: 09/12/00
ITEM TIlLE: STATUS ON THE GATEWAY MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
SUBMITTED BY: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR \....\\-~ '==>
REVIEWED BY: EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
4/5THS VOTE: YES DNO~
Staff will present an oral report to update the Agency an the Gateway Chula Vista Project. The
project's design process has been completed and the overall development program has been
submitted for review. The presentation will update the Agency regarding the submitted design plans.
This update is not a formal review of the project's Specific Plan or associated General Plan
Amendment, which will be presented fallowing the completion of the environmental review process.
- -